 | 1880 - 1042 halaman
...he said : " We agree in the general principle adopted by the Court of Queen's Bench, that where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger...with whom the contract is made can possibly require snch restraint must be considered as unreasonable in law, and the contract which would enforce it must... | |
 | Samuel Bealey Harrison, Great Britain. Court of King's Bench, Frederick Luard Wollaston - 1837 - 520 halaman
...even to the term of his life. We agree in the general principle adopted by the Court, that where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger...contract which would enforce it must be therefore void. But the difficulty we feel is in the application ofthat principle to the case before us. Where the... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer, Roger Meeson, William Newland Welsby - 1837 - 988 halaman
...(a), the ground upon which a restraint may be unreasonable is thus stated by the Court: "Where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger...contract which would enforce it must be therefore void." Now, that cannot be applied to the present case, for here it was clearly necessary for the plaintiffs'... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of King's Bench - 1837 - 886 halaman
...even to the term of his life. We agree in the general principle adopted by that Court, that where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger...contract which would enforce it must be therefore void. But the difficulty we feel is, in the application of that principle to the case before us. Where the... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of King's Bench, John Leycester Adolphus, Thomas Flower Ellis - 1838 - 1096 halaman
...even to the term of his life. We agree in the general principle adopted by the Court, that, where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger...contract which would enforce it must be therefore void. But the difficulty we feel is in the application of that principle to the case before us. Where the... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer, Roger Meeson, William Newland Welsby - 1840 - 752 halaman
...perdra sa ust fait fine au roy." force ; et dit q. ne usist my son art (c) I P. Wms. 181. P. nf Pleat, party from carrying on a trade is larger and wider than ^'' ., the protection of the party with whom it is made can posWARD gibly require, such restraint must be considered unreasonBYRNE. able in law,... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, John Scott - 1842 - 830 halaman
...rule to have been properly laid down by the Exchequer Chamber in Hitchcock v. Coker, that, " where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger...contract which would enforce it must be therefore void." But it does not necessarily follow, that, because in Homer v. Graves 1840. a contract by which the... | |
 | William Selwyn - 1842 - 814 halaman
...employment within a certain limited district and for a valuable conaderation, were valid in law. Where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger...law. and the contract which would enforce it must therefore be void (a). A general restriction limited only as to time falls within this rule, and is... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, James Manning, Thomas Colpitts Granger - 1842 - 1056 halaman
...consequence. J think the rule is properly laid down in Hitchcock v. Coker, where it is said that " where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger and wider than the protection of the person with whom the contract is made, can posIS40. 33 sibly require, such restraint must be considered... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Common Pleas, James Manning, Thomas Colpitts Granger - 1842 - 1050 halaman
...consequence. I think the rule is properly laid down in Hitchcock v. Coker, where it is said that " where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger and wider than the protection of the person with whom the contract is made, can pos32 S3 sibly require, such restraint must be considered... | |
| |
We agree in the general principle adopted by the Court, that where the restraint of a party from carrying on a trade is larger and wider than the protection of the party with whom the contract is made can possibly require, such restraint must be considered... 
